More On the Broadway Plaza

June 9, 2017

It seems I wasn’t the only one disappointed with the Planning meeting last night regarding Broadway and Commercial. Local resident and GWAC director Dave Carman who attended the meeting has sent the following letter to the Mayor, City Council, and Planners. He has kindly allowed me to republish the letter here:

My name is David Carman and I attended the Grandview-Woodland Plaza Exploration on June 7th. In addition to learning about the new plaza proposal I wanted to get information about the rationale behind the significant change being proposed. Other than a desire to “Heal the Divide”, no other information was provided in this regard on the display boards.

During the controlled question period it was revealed that the impetus for the proposed switch in location was unsurprisingly driven by the fact that the main tenant (Safeway) and main developer (Westbank) were not on board with having the public plaza built on their site. They apparently wish to see the plaza moved from their private property and placed elsewhere – in this case onto city owned land.

Considering the amount of time, preparation and planning I can imagine would have gone into the original plaza proposal I was very surprised to learn of this suggested change. Surely to have proceeded with a plaza plan of such magnitude – a plaza considered by some to be the anchor point of the entire Grandview-Woodland Plan – in-depth consultation and buy-in from the tenant and developer would have been required. I discussed this matter after the presentation with a member of the city planning staff, Yardley McNeill. Ms. McNeill was either unaware of or not forthcoming about any previous consultation planning staff may or may not have had with the tenant/developer and said the proposed change came “totally out of the blue”.

The aforementioned response can only leave me three possible conclusions:

  1. City planners formulated the original plaza plan with the blessing of the tenant/developer who have since back-pedaled on their commitment;
  1. City planners formulated the original plaza plan with no consultation or commitment from the on-site tenant/developer;
  1. City planners consulted with the tenant/developer, were aware of their concerns and knew that ultimately the original plaza proposal could possibly fail – yet put the plaza plan forth regardless to help to sell the GW plan.

The first scenario would suggest incompetence on the part of the tenant/developer, the latter two on the part of city planning staff.

Much of the feedback from the general public regarding the GW plan was ignored, but as this new plaza proposal demonstrates, city planning staff appear to be much more accommodating to corporate and development interests. In fact, based on the results I’ve seen from previous “public consultations” this suggested plaza relocation is not simply a proposal, but more likely a done deal.”

I also heard from another attendee that the City’s meeting last Wednesday on the North East False Creek project was run in a very similar manner to the one I described. Is this the new “open house” style for the future? Yet more bread and circuses peddling smoke and mirrors for the masses while the important decisions continue to get made behind closed doors?

 

Advertisements

Image: Diner #1

June 9, 2017